User talk:Ifnord: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 11:03, 4 January 2025

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ifnord has not edited Wikipedia since March 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This is Ifnord's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. Ifnord^{Talk to me!}

Additional archived messages are here.

Million Dollar Extreme

Citing Sam Hyde is connected to the Alt-Right with zero evidence or reputable references is wrong. I’ve tried to undo the changes several times, why have they been reverted? 2A00:23C8:A439:2D01:854F:1F91:FF02:D476 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2A00:23C8:A439:2D01:854F:1F91:FF02:D476. The article's talk page is a good place to develop consensus. Rather than edit war, please use that to express your concerns. I have started a section there where you can do just that. Ifnord (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blueshift

Hi Ifnord, are you interested in a blueshift here? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, Xaosflux. TonyBallioni asked me a while back but said I would need to do more content creation. These days, I mainly patrol new changes and work counter vandalism. I am wary of the arduous RfA process but even being noticed by such an esteemed editor as yourself makes me pause to think. I believe in the work of Wikipedia and if I can be of greater service, I would seriously consider it. Ifnord (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, if you haven't already, look over Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet to get some more background.

Yes, the RFA week can be tricky sometimes, especially if you have had significant conflicts with others or had major content disputes. Personally, I'm of the camp that RFA is a big deal - but it is because the English Wikipedia is a big deal and admins can have a lot of impact on others here. The admin toolkit has an enormous number of components and most admins rarely use 25% of the tools if that, an important aspect is that candidates should be trusted to not take risks with the tools they don't understand. Recent changes and counter vandalism efforts are always needed, so if you declare that you main focus will be in those areas a review would focus more on your AIV and CSD nominations then other things. I think it is useful to say "I don't know" or "I don't intend to volunteer in that area without learning more about it first" if asked about things you honestly don't want to get involved with (for example "How would you deal with this Arbitration Enforcement request?"; "How would you deal with this undisclosed paid editor?"; or "How would you handle this tricky copyright situation?"). We need "workforce" type admins to help deal with the never-ending onslaught of routine admin tasks as much as we need specialist admins.

I respect TonyBallioni's advice about content creation being something that is important to some RfA !voters; the way I see it - it is usually more along the lines of Will this admin understand the important of content generating editors? than Can this admin author brilliant prose? - so you may overcome that with interactions during new page patrol. (Pinging in TB here for any more insight, and someone that would make an excellent co-nom if he's open to it and you want to proceed.)

Your account has a long age, but there was a gap - that being said you have been fairly active for 5 years, so that is more than enough time of recent activity. You might get a question of "what happened between 2006-2017", but unless the answer is I was editing under a secret account!, I doubt it will be a factor.

The RFA environment can be stressful, but one way or the other it ends. You would be expected to check in on it, at least a few times the first 24 hours and maybe twice a day for the rest, but you don't have to babysit it every hour unless you want to.

I've rambled on long enough, think it over - and let's see if TB replies here - and let me know?

Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my wall of text above didn't spook you! If you are interested in the future, drop me a note - in the meantime keep up the good work elsewhere. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, Xaosflux. I did not think of it as a wall of text but as a welcome set of notes. I found Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet to be particularly helpful. I admit, I was hoping for Tony to weigh in but it looks like he's on a break. Also, I wanted some time to seriously consider this. Since you have generously put time into discussion with me, I can only assume you believe that I would be both more useful to the project and that an RfA would be successful. Therefore, I cannot think of anything that should hold me back, except for the experience of RfA itself. I would be honoured if you nominated me. Ifnord (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! I'll start up the nomination over the weekend, then you can update it and decide when you would like to start the period. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you, thanks. Ifnord (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ifnord initiated; please leave your own statement and answer the default questions. Just to cut it off, I suggest you put a statement (assuming this is true) that you only edit with this account, and that you do not edit for pay, at the end of your statement. Ping me before you kick off the official nomination by transcluding and I'll look it over to make sure I didn't leave any technical errors! Good luck! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, Xaosflux. I believe it is complete. Would you please review it at your leisure and transclude if you find no issue? Thank-you, in advance, and again for your kind words. Ifnord (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good, don't forget to "sign" the nomination acceptance then carefully transclude it to the main page. In Q1, I'd adjust that to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (as dealing with /Decrease is also important) (but only if you actually will want to help out there). To be fair, I expect you will get a lot of "neutral" and even some "oppose" votes for people that want the "perfect" admin candidate, it is even possible you won't pass. If not passing is something that would make you angry or withdraw from the project - hold off. If an unsuccessful RfA is something you would just take as guidance for improvement, then go forth! I do expect you will pass, but it won't be one of these 200/1/1 type results. You will likely get a lot of questions, just be honest and remember it is OK to not know everything and it is OK to not be interested in every aspect of sysoping. Be prepared to check in on the page regularly for questions. Best luck! — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I hope I transcluded properly, I do not know how long it takes to become "active" and show up on WP:CENTRAL. Pass or fail, I will continue to work on the project. I absolutely appreciate your guidance but I do not look at it as a metric for the quality of my work. Ifnord (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You've not actually transcluded it to the main RfA page - edit WP:RFA and follow the instructions in the wikitext :) firefly ( t · c ) 17:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, Firefly. That was kind; I hope it's done right now. Ifnord (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM! Best of luck! :) firefly ( t · c ) 18:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised and happy to see this. I usually assume that folk with your length of tenure either already are admins, or aren't interested in it. I'm sure you'd be great - good luck. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be off to a good start. Some opposes or neutrals are to be expected. The watchlist notice was just activated, so expect a spike in !voters over the next 24 hours. You're doing good keeping up with the questions as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely appreciate your support. I knew, and you warned me, that I was not a "perfect" candidate. There will be people who will not support the RfA and I respect that. I truly believe in the value of consensus, this is that process in action. Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ifnord, sorry it didn't work out - withdrawing was a good move considering the growing opposition and shows that you make good decisions. I hope not passing won't dissuade you from continuing to contribute! You had a range of support from many well established editors, and that is something to be proud of. In looking over the opposes, the real takeaway is that you could use some more time to learn about the community expectations regarding copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing. The good news is that there is a lot of opportunity to see and deal with that in recent changes patrolling, especially in Wikipedia:New pages patrol, which is something I think you may enjoy expanding in to. While you had some oppositions about not writing enough content, that alone would have been overcome; see Wikipedia:Content awareness, not content creation for an essay that has good points about that topic. If you can demonstrate improvement regarding copyvio/plag/paraphrasing I think a future RfA could be successful - however it will need to be consistent so you shouldn't reapply until next year. Thank you for accepting the nomination and putting yourself up for scrutiny! Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting yourself forward. I appreciate the work you do around here. DanCherek (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I agree 100% with xaosflux and likely would support a year-ish down the line if you "demonstrate improvement regarding copyvio/plag/paraphrasing" like xaosflux said. casualdejekyll 01:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to say a few words. I did oppose, but I expected to have a minority view along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cabayi, and expected the RfA would pass anyway around 85% support with some notes of caution / advice on how to proceed. I have never mandated any RfA candidate to have FAs or GAs, otherwise I wouldn't have strongly supported Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2 and wouldn't have nominated Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/331dot. I think the advice from Xaosflux is good, and I have in the past put forward RfA candidates I have previously opposed for a second run. I'm certainly not going to write you off as somebody who will never be an admin. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Han

Do you think a prod is in order, or just go straight to AfD? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adakiko. I think the current solution, redirecting to Paul Han Xirang, is sufficient. Prod would have been quickly reverted by the IP, as evidenced by their removal of the notability tag without any improvement. If the redirect is reverted, I would suggest AfD. Ifnord (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has been reverted to the article a number of times by the anon. It's now a redirect again. We'll see how long that lasts! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of consoling tea

Receiving opposition from members of a community where you're active never feels nice — your contributions are appreciated Ifnord, don't forget that. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, TNT. I can at least pull some of my bruised ego back by reading the kindness written by editors I hold in high esteem, such as yourself. It always makes me giggle when I see your username, I don't know if it comes from the adorable flash game that was popular some years back - but I like to think so. I imagine you being carried away by a giant crab at the end of every comment you make. Ifnord (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alas it's not inspired by No Time to Explain — many have thought it a philosophical username with deep meaning, but in reality its just a silly meme -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Hello Ifnord, I have seen your edits, you did a great job in some fields, I was shocked after see you withdraw your nomination, I hope you will be known for your good work in Wikipedia in every field, and then ready for reapply for admin..Regards. — B203GTB • (talk) • 08:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For stepping up at RfA. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Too bad you didn't get the mop. How about a kitten instead?

Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you go?

Hey Ifnord, I noticed you doing a lot of recent changes patrolling a couple weeks ago but you haven’t edited since 13 March. Any reason for that? Hope all is well. 4.16.99.82 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose heart

Haven't seen you around lately. Take some time off if you need to, but the best thing after getting thrown from a horse is to get back on. You are needed here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to second this. I can't emphasise this enough - views at an RfA are not a condemnation of that editor, and I don't want to see a good-faith editor with an unsuccessful RfA quit the project. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

I'm sorry that you didn't get to be an admin and be able to block people or delete pages. How about a nice cupcake instead? Leprechol (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hey Ifnord, haven't seen you around in a while - checking in to see how things are. Hope that rfa thing hasn't soured you on the rest of the project, would be good to see you editing again. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Haven't seen you around in a while. Hope all is well, Ifnord.

S0091 (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Human at the other end: what they all said, we miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Diana Perkins for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diana Perkins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Perkins until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Imsalogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Imsalogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first edit day!

Adr28382 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1701 (number) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1701 (number) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1701 (number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]